toy models of QM

vzn

18:39

some feedback/ debate from "The_serious_account" on reddit re "superclassical/ emergent QM, recent developments, rough outline/ overview/ leads". reddit physics has a similar "off topic" rule....

> Unscientific content
> _/r/Physics_ is a place for the discussion of valid and testable science, not pet theories and speculation presented as fact. We aim to be a welcoming place for both academics as well as the general public, and as such posts with no basis in the current understanding of physics are not allowed as they might serve to misinform.

vzn

19:04

nevertheless great traffic/ hits from reddit!

vzn

19:48

:)

Thomas Klimpel

20:23

@vzn You wrote "agree somewhat with TKs earlier statement. QM can be seen as a sort of "blurred lens" for reality." My statement was meant as a reply to NikolajK's question "What's the problem with QM in the first place? I feel it's only difficult if you fix your philosophical postition from the start, ..."

I didn't really know what he alluded to exactly, but my statement hints at what is unsatisfactory with QM from an ontological point of view.

My current understanding of QM is good enough as an epistemological for me, but it wouldn't be a satisfactory ontological model. But Anderson and Brady try to construct an ontological model, without even discussing why that limiting the information content of an ontological model would be important.

But instead of trying to construct an ontological model, one could start with something more philosophical first: What are the ontological commitments embedded in the current epistemological understanding of QM? Do these commitments already preclude to limit the information content?

vzn

21:11

Jan 21 at 23:57, by Thomas Klimpel

There is also a philosophical side, which is a total different story. A real number can contain an infinite amount of information, but nature probably doesn't contain an infinite amount of information in a finite volume. So nature has to use QM (or something similar) to blur details enough such they no longer contain an infinite amount of information.

Jan 22 at 9:14, by NikolajK

I'm mostly arguing against your "So nature has to use QM"

to me QM can be seen as a "blurring" similar to the digitizer LSB reflecting information about the wavefn.

to me real physics theories dont have much to say about either ontology or epistemology. think it was the bohrian copenhagent interpretation conceptual "detour" (to put it politely) that led to much of this arising.

"why nature does [x]" type questions are bordering on metaphysics/ philosophy...

> ontology — the branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence or being as such.

> epstemology — a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge.

re nature/ "finite information in a given volume" reminds me of this old q by fortnow

30

Q: What is the Volume of Information?

This question was asked to Jeannette Wing after her PCAST presentation on computer science. “From a physics perspective, is there a maximum volume of information we can have?” (a nice challenge question for the theoretical computer science community since I think it begs the question “What is...

Thomas Klimpel

21:26

Holographic principle

The holographic principle is a property of string theories and a supposed property of quantum gravity that states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon. First proposed by Gerard 't Hooft, it was given a precise string-theory interpretation by Leonard Susskind who combined his ideas with previous ones of 't Hooft and Charles Thorn. As pointed out by Raphael Bousso, Thorn observed in 1978 that string theory admits a lower-dimensional description in which gravity emerges from...

Cool, now I even know where to start, when I want to know more of this aspect of physics.

But there is a problem: it seems to be related to string theory, and I really don't want to read/think about that anytime soon.

T Abraham

21:50

@ThomasKlimpel me too..

vzn

there are some nice books out now challenging string theory. eg by woit & smolin.

theres a rearguard challenge by physicists against its sheer abstraction & untestability. (revenge of popperian falsifiability although not usually cited as that by physicists...)

T Abraham

@vzn I decided to learn from the official string theory website...

vzn

am going to paste em in just for completeness/ record.

amazon.com/Not-Even-Wrong-Failure-Physical-ebook/dp/B00JLMMEQQ

amazon.com/The-Trouble-With-Physics-Science-ebook/dp/B003WUYP56

woit has a very lively blog "not even wrong".

T Abraham

@vzn are these mathematical intro to string theory?

@ThomasKlimpel u there?

vzn

they are more written at level of "popular science" but by serious scientists.

not much math in them afaik.

T Abraham

21:56

@vzn then nvm.. I got string theory for dummies...

vzn

lol. see it‌. yeah "dummies" books are really not bad. eg theres one on QM.

T Abraham

gota go ,come back in an hour...

BTW, full house, huh?

vzn

l8r. actually think this chat room might die any minute :p :(

vzn

22:31

might as well just paste these for some small )( fun/ google fodder :\

amazon.com/String-Theory-Dummies-Andrew-Zimmerman/dp/047046724X

amazon.com/Quantum-Physics-Dummies-Steve-Holzner/dp/1118460820

Thomas Klimpel

22:49

amazon.de/…

T Abraham

hey @ThomasKlimpel !

Thomas Klimpel

@NikolajK With respect to the mathematics of decoherence, entanglement and the density matrix, (and quantum information/quantum algorithms) "Quantenmechanik zu Fuß 2" did the trick for me.

@TAbraham Hey TA

T Abraham

@ThomasKlimpel how long will you be available?

vzn

23:37

3 hours ago, by Thomas Klimpel

My current understanding of QM is good enough as an epistemological for me, but it wouldn't be a satisfactory ontological model. But Anderson and Brady try to construct an ontological model, without even discussing why that limiting the information content of an ontological model would be important.

??? where? what does ABs theory have to do with an "ontological model"?

Thomas Klimpel

23:51

If you have a fluid and a droplet on a fluid, then you have something which "exists".

vzn

ok.

pinballs & pinball mechanisms "exist" too ... theres an interesting epistemological/ ontological theory waiting to be understood there :)

Transcript for